Plaintiff
Brigette Barfield instituted this action in June 2017, to
challenge the denial of her application for social security
income. Barfield claims that Administrative Law Judge
(“ALJ”) Kelly Davis erred in failing to explain
properly why a disability decision rating from the Department
of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) was not given
substantial weight. Both Barfield and Defendant Nancy
Berryhill have filed motions seeking a judgment on the
pleadings in their favor. D.E. 11, 17.

After
reviewing the parties' arguments, the court has
determined that the record does not support ALJ Davis's
reasoning for giving little weight to the VA disability
finding. Therefore, the undersigned magistrate judge
recommends that the court grant Barfield's motion, deny
Berryhill's motion, and remand the matter to the
Commissioner for further consideration.[1]

I.
Background

In May
2012, Barfield filed an application for disability benefits
alleging a disability that began in February 2007. After her
claim was denied at the initial level and upon
reconsideration, Barfield appeared at a hearing before an ALJ
to determine whether she was entitled to benefits. The ALJ
determined that Barfield was not entitled to benefits because
she was not disabled. Tr. at 135-50. The Appeals Council then
remanded the case for further consideration.

Following
a supplemental hearing in March 2016, ALJ Davis determined
that Barfield was not entitled to benefits because she was
not disabled. Tr. at 22-34. ALJ Davis found that Barfield had
the following severe impairments: degenerative disc disease,
asthma, obesity, torn left rotator cuff, palindromic
rheumatism, and hypertension. Tr. at 24. ALJ Davis found that
Barfield's impairments, alone or in combination, did not
meet or equal a Listing impairment. Tr. at 25.

ALJ
Davis determined that Barfield had the RFC to perform a
reduced range of light work from her onset date through
December 31, 2012, her date last insured. Tr. at 26. Barfield
can occasionally climb, stoop, kneel, crouch, crawl, and
balance. Id. Barfield must avoid even moderate
exposure to pulmonary irritants such as fumes, odors, dusts,
gases, and poor ventilation. Id. She should also
avoid concentrated exposure to hazards such as machinery and
heights. Id. Barfield can occasionally reach
overhead with her upper left extremity and she can frequently
handle and finger with both upper extremities. Id.

ALJ
Davis concluded that Barfield cannot perform her past
relevant work as a corrections officer. Tr. at 32. But
considering her age, education, work experience, and RFC, ALJ
Davis found that there were jobs that existed in significant
numbers in the national economy that Barfield could perform.
Tr. at 32-33. These jobs include: non-postal mail clerk,
clerical assistant, and router. Id. Thus, ALJ Davis
found that Barfield was not disabled. Tr. at 33-34.

After
unsuccessfully seeking review by the Appeals Council,
Barfield began this action in June 2017. D.E. 1.

II.
Analysis

A.
Standard for Review of the Acting Commissioner's Final
Decision

When a
social security claimant appeals a final decision of the
Commissioner, the district court's review is limited to
the determination of whether, based on the entire
administrative record, there is substantial evidence to
support the Commissioner's findings. 42 U.S.C. §
405(g); Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401
(1971). Substantial evidence is defined as “evidence
which a reasoning mind would accept as sufficient to support
a particular conclusion.” Shively v. Heckler,
739 F.2d 987, 989 (4th Cir. 1984) (quoting Laws v.
Celebrezze, 368 F.2d 640, 642 (4th Cir. 1966)). If the
Commissioner's decision is supported by such evidence, it
must be affirmed. Smith v. Chater, 99 F.3d 635, 638
(4th Cir. 1996).

B.
Standard for Evaluating Disability

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;In
making a disability determination, the ALJ engages in a
five-step evaluation process. 20 C.F.R. &sect; 404.1520;
see Johnson v. Barnhart, 434 F.3d 650 (4th Cir.
2005). The analysis requires the ALJ to consider the
following enumerated factors sequentially. At step one, if
the claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful
activity, the claim is denied. At step two, the claim is
denied if the claimant does not have a severe impairment or
combination of impairments significantly limiting him or her
from performing basic work activities. At step three, the
claimant&#39;s impairment is compared to those in the Listing
of Impairments. See 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P,
App. 1. If the impairment is listed in the Listing of
Impairments or if it is equivalent to a listed impairment,
disability is conclusively presumed. However, if the
claimant's impairment does not meet or equal a listed
impairment, the ALJ assesses the claimant's RFC to
determine, at step four, whether he can perform his past work
despite his impairments. If the claimant cannot perform past
relevant work, the analysis moves on to step five:
...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.